I for you enjoy your documentation... I suspect Mike does not bother to read it though...
On Jan 22, 4:49 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > You never change. I continue to provide you PROOF, via quotes, web > links and documents, that this is not the case. What we get from you > is insults, followed by personal opinion. Why don't you post some > evidence that the levees failed because of funding cuts. You haven't > and you can't because there is none. No one from the ACoE is on record > as having said the funding cuts had anything to do with it. Is General > Strock full of shit too? I mean, he's only the head of the agency > responsible for the levees. > > At this point I can only conclude you don't know jack shit about the > levees. > > Being that I’m such a nice guy I’ll go so far as to provide you two > more links. I’m going to pretend you actually care what caused the > failures, and at these two links you’ll find lots of good information > on this from people with lots of qualifications and who actually > investigated the failures. I point this out just in case you want to > suggest they too are full of shit. > > http://www.ewrinstitute.org/files/pdf/katrinalevees.pdf > > http://kerrn.org/pdf/IPETBEAreview.pdf > > And in an honest effort to keep you from embarrassing yourself > further, let me remind you the projects affected by the funding cuts > were intended to bring the levees back to their original design > specifications. This is important because, assuming you read the > reports above, you will find that the original specifications were > severely lacking. They were doomed to failure. In fact, several > failure points were sections that had been recently repaired. > > I’ve also discovered something else; you have no reading > comprehension. I have never said the Mayor or Governor did any work on > the levees. I have said a dozen times or more it's the ACoE that > designed and maintained them. No wonder you get things so screwed up. > > On Jan 22, 3:09 pm, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > frank to put it bluntly you are full of shit ! > > if you had done any research at all you would know that the levees > > failed because the maintenance on them was not done. and the reason it > > wasn't done was because bush cut the funding for SELA . and if you had > > bothered to think or read anything at all about the levees system you > > wold know that the corps of engineers does the work on the levees not > > the mayor or the Governor . > > On Jan 22, 11:52 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I've done extensive research on this, but I seriously doubt you have. > > > Unlike you, who thrives on blaming Bush, I’m indifferent. If he’s at > > > fault, I’ve got no problem pointing that out. But unlike you, I look > > > at the facts and make informed decisions without any preconceived > > > ideas on who to blame and no incentive to falsely assign blame for > > > political gain. > > > > You ignore the role that Blanco played in the disaster. > > > You ignore the role that Nagin played in the disaster. > > > You ignore the history of the levee system and the role the levee > > > commission played, via its corruption, negligence and mismanagement. > > > You ignore what the ACoE and NOAA said concerning the design of the > > > levees and its basic inability to resist a storm the size of Katrina. > > > > The only thing you pay attention to are the Bush cuts - cuts I would > > > consider shortsighted and ill-advised - but which, by all 'expert and > > > official' accounts - played little to no role in the disaster. You've > > > never posted anything that supports your argument other than your own > > > opinion. The ACoE is responsible for the levees. Can you post anything > > > from them saying the cuts caused the failure? Do you understand the > > > history of the levee system and do you understand that if not for > > > corruption and mismanagement, this would never have been an issue to > > > debate? Have you read the details of the actual projects affected by > > > the cuts and do you understand what they were designed to achieve? Do > > > you understand the impact of the eradication of the wetlands that > > > created a natural barrier for New Orleans, and what impact that had on > > > the disaster? I doubt you understand any of this. You just want to > > > blame Bush.. screw the details. > > > > Quote: > > > You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the commander of the > > > Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's talked to some reporters > > > already and talked about some of these issues. I think some people > > > maybe have tried to make a suggestion or imply that certain funding > > > would have prevented the flooding from happening, and he has > > > essentially said there's been nothing to suggest that whatsoever, and > > > it's been more of a design issue with the levees. > > > > Quote: > > > The worst has happened in New Orleans and not everyone is surprised. > > > For years, specialists have warned that the city, built partly below > > > sea level and in an area of radically depleted wetlands, was a natural > > > disaster waiting to happen. And when it did, they said, we would have > > > no one to blame but ourselves. > > > ... > > > But, according to the US Geological Survey, Louisiana has lost 1,900 > > > square miles of wetland in the past seven decades - an area larger > > > than the state of Rhode Island. > > > > The draining of the wetlands to make way for roads, malls, beach > > > communities, marinas and condominiums has also meant shrinkage of the > > > shoreline. Louisiana, in fact, loses 25 square miles of coast every > > > year. > > > > On Jan 22, 10:33 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > like it or not the actions of G W Bush when he cut the funds for SELA > > > > caused the deaths of thousands of Americans ! > > > > and i would suggest you do some research before you blindly except a > > > > report written by one of bush's administration . > > > > On Jan 22, 10:22 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > No one ever said it was poor design; it simply was an inadequate > > > > > design for something other than a fast moving cat 3 storm. The ACoE > > > > > has said it wasn't designed for that type of storm, and would have > > > > > failed regardless. There are storm simulations that were done by NOAA > > > > > prior to Katrina that indicated that under exactly the conditions > > > > > Katrina presented, New Orleans would flood. All these experts tell us > > > > > New Orleans would flood, but Mike knows better. Your arrogance is > > > > > impressive, if nothing else. > > > > > > Yeah, the center of the storm was to the east of New Orleans. That > > > > > spared it the worst of the winds, but had little bearing on the storm > > > > > surge, which was over 28', yet you choose to ignore that fact. I > > > > > provided you a link to give you a 20 year history of corruption and > > > > > mismanagement regarding the levees - proof that long before Bush was > > > > > president the seeds to disaster were being sewn, but you choose to > > > > > ignore the facts. It's public record that the levee committee > > > > > routinely channeled funds to casinos and other 'more important' > > > > > projects, but you choose to ignore the facts. You're not interested in > > > > > why the levees didn't hold the storm back, nor are you interested in > > > > > what was done wrong that cost lives, because you have consistently > > > > > ignored the facts. All you are interested in is your anti-Bush > > > > > rhetoric, and anything that gets in the way of that is to be ignored. > > > > > But not to worry; as is always the case, once the politically > > > > > motivated stop their shouting and the facts are examined, the truth > > > > > eventually comes out. There are very few remaining who don’t > > > > > understand the history of the levee system, and that the Bush cuts had > > > > > little to do with Katrina. So keep on blowing your BS if you like, but > > > > > be advised you are only fooling yourself. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2:58 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > what is certain is that the levees failed for lack of maintenance . > > > > > > not poor design ! > > > > > > the storm did not even hit New Orleans it hit to the east of the > > > > > > city > > > > > > and the levees failed after the storm was long gone . because bush > > > > > > cut > > > > > > the funds for the SELA project . > > > > > > On Jan 21, 5:10 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I get he cut the funds. What I don't get is how you are > > > > > > > connecting the > > > > > > > dot between his cutting funds and the levees failing. Have you > > > > > > > read > > > > > > > anything about this? Exactly how many people need to tell you the > > > > > > > levees would have failed, even if in perfect condition? > > > > > > > > It's like you blaming me for not funding the shutters on your home > > > > > > > which caused the house to collapse when the tornado hit it. The > > > > > > > house > > > > > > > was going to go down either way. The levees were not designed to > > > > > > > handle that size storm. It's pretty straight forward Mike. You're > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > choosing to ignore it for political gain. > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 4:38 pm, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > what don't you get about bush cutting the funds for the SELA > > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > which caused the levees to fail ? > > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 1:29 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mike, you just don’t get it (or you don’t want to). And > > > > > > > > > apparently, > > > > > > > > > you also refuse to read. So let me post part of what you > > > > > > > > > aren’t > > > > > > > > > reading; > > > > > > > > > > “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's > > > > > > > > > (NOAA's) > > > > > > > > > official storm surge model SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland > > > > > > > > > Surges from > > > > > > > > > Hurricanes) was developed in the late 1960s, and Leuttich and > > > > > > > > > several > > > > > > > > > collaborators have created a more sophisticated model called > > > > > > > > > ADCIRC > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
